Improbable, Hypothetical, Jury Duty Questions!
December 13, 2011 8:49 PM Subscribe
What happens if you are picked to serve jury duty on a very long trial (2 - 6 months)?
I was called for jury duty today and started to wonder how courts pick juries that are well-balanced for long trials. It seems to me that the people who will not be paid for jury duty that runs indefinitely get excused from serving (as I was) but does this mean that the jurors end up self-selecting as more wealthy, upper class or retired jurors?
Secondary Question: What happens if the trial goes longer than the prospective jurors are told during the selection process? What if a juror for whom the original time it would not have been a hardship is eventually unable to serve for financial or personal reasons?
I was called for jury duty today and started to wonder how courts pick juries that are well-balanced for long trials. It seems to me that the people who will not be paid for jury duty that runs indefinitely get excused from serving (as I was) but does this mean that the jurors end up self-selecting as more wealthy, upper class or retired jurors?
Secondary Question: What happens if the trial goes longer than the prospective jurors are told during the selection process? What if a juror for whom the original time it would not have been a hardship is eventually unable to serve for financial or personal reasons?
A lot of state and federal jobs pay unlimited jury duty time.
posted by hwyengr at 9:08 PM on December 13, 2011
posted by hwyengr at 9:08 PM on December 13, 2011
I think this depends a lot on what jurisdiction you're in. Some are more stringent on exemptions from jury duty than others. As to self-selecting more wealthy etc. jurors, I can tell you that those same factors select for more public sector employees (who are generally paid in full for jury duty), which ought to mitigate any upper-class bias.
posted by dixiecupdrinking at 9:09 PM on December 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by dixiecupdrinking at 9:09 PM on December 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
You know, it might have meant self-selecting as more wealthy, upper class, and retired in the past, but the atmosphere of unemployment and underemployment may have created a little more fairness there.
I just went for jury duty a couple weeks ago, and there was actually a really varied cross-section of people (with the exception of people related to the film/tv industry, because I live in LA) from many different types of professions and socioeconomic statuses who ended up on the jury. And the judge who was hearing people's pleas to be excused was not super sympathetic to anything other than "I might lose my house if I don't work because I'm the only earner in my family." (One lady claimed she was the only one who could process payroll for her small business, so it would affect others' income, and he said, "you have weekends free, don't you?")
As a personal anecdote, my job pays for 5 days of jury duty, and the trial I was almost selected for was potentially going to run 2 weeks. After seeing the court-appointed guy who was representing the defendant, and his total lack of skill in speaking, my "oh my god, it doesn't matter if this guy is guilty or not, his lawyer sucks so much he's going to jail for the rest of his life" thoughts caused me to convince myself that I would use up some of my sick/vacation time in order to serve on the trial for those extra days, just to help make sure that the guy got a fair chance and someone would be there and recognize that his lawyer was incompetent. This kind of reaction was totally unexpected for me, and I would imagine I'm not the only person who has been comfortable with the idea of making a little bit of a concession to try to do their civic duty.
posted by so_gracefully at 9:15 PM on December 13, 2011 [5 favorites]
I just went for jury duty a couple weeks ago, and there was actually a really varied cross-section of people (with the exception of people related to the film/tv industry, because I live in LA) from many different types of professions and socioeconomic statuses who ended up on the jury. And the judge who was hearing people's pleas to be excused was not super sympathetic to anything other than "I might lose my house if I don't work because I'm the only earner in my family." (One lady claimed she was the only one who could process payroll for her small business, so it would affect others' income, and he said, "you have weekends free, don't you?")
As a personal anecdote, my job pays for 5 days of jury duty, and the trial I was almost selected for was potentially going to run 2 weeks. After seeing the court-appointed guy who was representing the defendant, and his total lack of skill in speaking, my "oh my god, it doesn't matter if this guy is guilty or not, his lawyer sucks so much he's going to jail for the rest of his life" thoughts caused me to convince myself that I would use up some of my sick/vacation time in order to serve on the trial for those extra days, just to help make sure that the guy got a fair chance and someone would be there and recognize that his lawyer was incompetent. This kind of reaction was totally unexpected for me, and I would imagine I'm not the only person who has been comfortable with the idea of making a little bit of a concession to try to do their civic duty.
posted by so_gracefully at 9:15 PM on December 13, 2011 [5 favorites]
My bff (sorry) was on a jury for a kidnapping/ransom case that lasted for 3 months (in British Columbia). She's a salaried employee at a bank and she was just considered to be on paid leave for the duration.
posted by saradarlin at 10:27 PM on December 13, 2011
posted by saradarlin at 10:27 PM on December 13, 2011
In my jurisdiction the first thing they have you do at jury orientation is to indicate your availability for long trials (more than two weeks) or very long trials (a month or more). You add a couple letters to the bottom of your jury summons before turning it in to be added to the various jury pools.
To get out of a trial that you're already in, I'd think the presiding judge would have to let you go, but that's just a guess.
As others have said, most cases don't last anywhere near that long, and if your jurisdiction is anything like mine, you most likely won't even get called into a jury pool. I've been summoned something like 7 times in my 18 years of eligibility, have only been into two courtrooms, and only served on one trial. Every other time I was let go without ever leaving the waiting room.
posted by LionIndex at 10:37 PM on December 13, 2011
To get out of a trial that you're already in, I'd think the presiding judge would have to let you go, but that's just a guess.
As others have said, most cases don't last anywhere near that long, and if your jurisdiction is anything like mine, you most likely won't even get called into a jury pool. I've been summoned something like 7 times in my 18 years of eligibility, have only been into two courtrooms, and only served on one trial. Every other time I was let go without ever leaving the waiting room.
posted by LionIndex at 10:37 PM on December 13, 2011
I'm a software engineer and my company pays out full unlimited salaries for jury duty, which means we have no hardship leg to stand on trying to get out of serving. I definitely know people who've been on juries that took over a month. They just ended up getting home from jury duty and spending 5-6 hours a night trying to get some amount of work done and stay up to date on their email. Pretty crummy.
posted by troublesome at 10:42 PM on December 13, 2011
posted by troublesome at 10:42 PM on December 13, 2011
When I was called for jury duty in in San Diego about a year ago, during the orientation time one of the speakers said there was a jury they were trying to fill for a long case that was expected to go six weeks. On our jury questionnaires they asked the big room of people we checked a box if we could swing that long of trial. They said in most cases trials would less than five days but maybe more.
The large group was assigned individual courtrooms and cases about 60 people in my case for 12 jurors and two alternates. I was juror 49 and was seated 10th on the jury. It was a domestic violence case and the judge, defense and prosecutors excused people that had either be in a violence case personally or close to one if they felt they could be impartial.
People that made it into the courtroom for voir dire are people the Jury Services people didn't let out of it or allow to reschedule. THe people who said they couldn't miss up to a week of work were scrutinized extra heavy and the judge said she'd be happy to call people's bosses that had issue with jury service. For people with jobs that didn't pay for jury duty she couldn't compel them to pay, of course. But she'd remind the boss of the service the employee is doing to the community and whatnot.
Of those people that said they had the money/time/job hardship most of them ended up being excused. A few students said they couldn't' do it because of school (even though the semester hadn't started yet and the judge indicated having class wasn't always a valid excuse. They allow you to reschedule a time or two depending on circumstances so students can come back during a break, but you couldn't to it too many times). Some said they could serve for the scheduled five days but would have a hardship if it was longer. The judge said it wouldn't go as long she'd be surprised if it was 3 (she was right).
The gist I got was Jury Services would start finding people for longer juries earlier than they would for short cases where you go to court, get selected or weeded on the same day. I suspect during the questionnaire they asked the giant room of people they'd find ones that could serve on the long jury and would contact them later when the trial would start.
At least where I am the jury pool is everyone on the voter registration rolls. On the individual trial it kept its diversity. Like the OP I would suspect that the pool might skew more toward retirees, people on disability, students, homemakers and people with jobs with indefinite leave for jury service. To be able to say in January that you'll be free for a trial starting in February for a trial lasting two months is a special kind of person. I know I can't do that.
posted by birdherder at 10:52 PM on December 13, 2011
The large group was assigned individual courtrooms and cases about 60 people in my case for 12 jurors and two alternates. I was juror 49 and was seated 10th on the jury. It was a domestic violence case and the judge, defense and prosecutors excused people that had either be in a violence case personally or close to one if they felt they could be impartial.
People that made it into the courtroom for voir dire are people the Jury Services people didn't let out of it or allow to reschedule. THe people who said they couldn't miss up to a week of work were scrutinized extra heavy and the judge said she'd be happy to call people's bosses that had issue with jury service. For people with jobs that didn't pay for jury duty she couldn't compel them to pay, of course. But she'd remind the boss of the service the employee is doing to the community and whatnot.
Of those people that said they had the money/time/job hardship most of them ended up being excused. A few students said they couldn't' do it because of school (even though the semester hadn't started yet and the judge indicated having class wasn't always a valid excuse. They allow you to reschedule a time or two depending on circumstances so students can come back during a break, but you couldn't to it too many times). Some said they could serve for the scheduled five days but would have a hardship if it was longer. The judge said it wouldn't go as long she'd be surprised if it was 3 (she was right).
The gist I got was Jury Services would start finding people for longer juries earlier than they would for short cases where you go to court, get selected or weeded on the same day. I suspect during the questionnaire they asked the giant room of people they'd find ones that could serve on the long jury and would contact them later when the trial would start.
At least where I am the jury pool is everyone on the voter registration rolls. On the individual trial it kept its diversity. Like the OP I would suspect that the pool might skew more toward retirees, people on disability, students, homemakers and people with jobs with indefinite leave for jury service. To be able to say in January that you'll be free for a trial starting in February for a trial lasting two months is a special kind of person. I know I can't do that.
posted by birdherder at 10:52 PM on December 13, 2011
Basically the answer is yes, this effect does bias the jury pool, at least somewhat, but the system attempts to do the best job it can. For instance, government employees are usually given paid leave for jury service, so there's a big pool of mostly middle class public sector workers who are relatively available to serve. Some areas have higher rates of juror pay, which attempts to level the playing field a bit more, and as that link shows, some jurisdictions also increase the pay rate on a sliding scale for longer trials.
The most significant area of research around this has been in relation to the so-called "death-qualified jury" used in capital cases. Such cases tend to be on the longer side, so more potential jurors are excluded due to work/family/travel commitments as you've pointed out. Then remove all those who say they are categorically opposed to capital punishment and those who would not consider life imprisonment in the event of a guilty verdict, and you've really screwed things up.
Whenever I've gone through voir dire, judges have always asked about scheduling conflicts that would go beyond the estimated time-frame for the trial. For the short trial where I was on the jury, at least one juror had a scheduled flight a day or two after the trial was supposed to end, but the judge seated him as it would be a short one and we had two alternates available in case it did run long. When I was in jury selection for a two+ month racial discrimination/wrongful discharge case involving a massive multinational corporation (which turned out to be even uglier than it sounds), I gave the clerk a simple and respectful letter to the judge on the second day explaining that while employees cannot be fired or discriminated against for jury service, contractors have no such luxury, and asking to be excused. The judge called me back to chambers with council present before she even came out, and quietly shooed me out the back door in the hope that the rest of the pool wouldn't notice that I was allowed to leave. Of course, I really don't think I would have been selected given my pre-existing knowledge of the defendant's business practices and my general inability to succinctly answer yes/no questions, so I don't feel particularly bad about asking to short-circuit the process.
If a juror eventually becomes unable to serve during the trial, the judge will consider their request and try to accommodate it. While a judge is unlikely to dismiss you in the middle of a trial for financial reasons, there's a point where a juror is suffering so much by being there that the defendant really isn't getting a fair trial. By in large, my understanding is that judges try pretty hard to nail down trial schedules to the extent possible. While they can't control how long the jury deliberates, judges can try to keep things moving, and don't want trials to run long either (as this messes up the court's schedule).
posted by zachlipton at 1:28 AM on December 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
The most significant area of research around this has been in relation to the so-called "death-qualified jury" used in capital cases. Such cases tend to be on the longer side, so more potential jurors are excluded due to work/family/travel commitments as you've pointed out. Then remove all those who say they are categorically opposed to capital punishment and those who would not consider life imprisonment in the event of a guilty verdict, and you've really screwed things up.
Whenever I've gone through voir dire, judges have always asked about scheduling conflicts that would go beyond the estimated time-frame for the trial. For the short trial where I was on the jury, at least one juror had a scheduled flight a day or two after the trial was supposed to end, but the judge seated him as it would be a short one and we had two alternates available in case it did run long. When I was in jury selection for a two+ month racial discrimination/wrongful discharge case involving a massive multinational corporation (which turned out to be even uglier than it sounds), I gave the clerk a simple and respectful letter to the judge on the second day explaining that while employees cannot be fired or discriminated against for jury service, contractors have no such luxury, and asking to be excused. The judge called me back to chambers with council present before she even came out, and quietly shooed me out the back door in the hope that the rest of the pool wouldn't notice that I was allowed to leave. Of course, I really don't think I would have been selected given my pre-existing knowledge of the defendant's business practices and my general inability to succinctly answer yes/no questions, so I don't feel particularly bad about asking to short-circuit the process.
If a juror eventually becomes unable to serve during the trial, the judge will consider their request and try to accommodate it. While a judge is unlikely to dismiss you in the middle of a trial for financial reasons, there's a point where a juror is suffering so much by being there that the defendant really isn't getting a fair trial. By in large, my understanding is that judges try pretty hard to nail down trial schedules to the extent possible. While they can't control how long the jury deliberates, judges can try to keep things moving, and don't want trials to run long either (as this messes up the court's schedule).
posted by zachlipton at 1:28 AM on December 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
I served as a juror this past fall and observed that potential jurors were allowed much more lenience than what some other people here have described - it seems to me that the personal lenience of the judge is relevant. During voir dire, several people described situations that they thought would prevent them from serving a case longer than a week, and the judge excused them all. Even the guy who said he might have classes to attend at a school he wasn't sure he'd been accepted to yet.
To answer one of your secondary questions - our trial went on for longer than anticipated, and longer beyond that for deliberation. One of our jurors had plane tickets to leave town the day after the judge said the trial would be finished, so when it came time for us to deliberate, she was excused and our alternate stepped in at that point.
posted by illenion at 1:54 AM on December 14, 2011
To answer one of your secondary questions - our trial went on for longer than anticipated, and longer beyond that for deliberation. One of our jurors had plane tickets to leave town the day after the judge said the trial would be finished, so when it came time for us to deliberate, she was excused and our alternate stepped in at that point.
posted by illenion at 1:54 AM on December 14, 2011
When I was summoned for jury duty in Massachusetts, it was clearly stated that my employer had to pay me my regular pay for the duration of jury duty. If I were a stay-at-home-parent/homemaker, then I'd have been paid $50/day by the state. Or something like that. I don't recall an option of listing my availability for a long trial.
I went through voir dire for a first degree murder trial, and thankfully, was not selected to serve. But I was never asked about my availability for the length of the trial. I was only asked questions about if guns were an issue for me, if the race of the defendants would affect anything regarding my decisions, if I believed I could look at all the evidence objectively, etc., But I wasn't asked about how long I could be on the jury. A few years before my experience, a coworker was a juror on a trial for nearly a month. She was paid regularly and her department just had to manage without her.
posted by zizzle at 4:38 AM on December 14, 2011
I went through voir dire for a first degree murder trial, and thankfully, was not selected to serve. But I was never asked about my availability for the length of the trial. I was only asked questions about if guns were an issue for me, if the race of the defendants would affect anything regarding my decisions, if I believed I could look at all the evidence objectively, etc., But I wasn't asked about how long I could be on the jury. A few years before my experience, a coworker was a juror on a trial for nearly a month. She was paid regularly and her department just had to manage without her.
posted by zizzle at 4:38 AM on December 14, 2011
What happens if the trial goes longer than the prospective jurors are told during the selection process?
Then the judge gets pissed at the attorneys. At the pre-trial conference, attorneys are asked how long they think the trial is going to take. Asking for more time than you need is pretty standard, and judges are always happy to schedule a trial for four days and wrap up in three, etc. But because the attorneys have had ample opportunity to ask for as much time as they need, judges aren't generally inclined to let them go over that. I've seen a plaintiff's attorney shut down mid-way through his closing argument, just as he started to talk about damages, because he had run out of time.
By the time a case gets to trial, the attorneys basically know what's going to happen. They know who they're going to call, who the other side is going to call, and about how long each witness is going to testify. Surprises at trial are exceedingly unwelcome, and when they happen, they're usually a surprise to both sides. Springing new facts or a new argument on opposing counsel isn't just kind of unfair, it is in many cases not allowed, either because it contradicts prior sworn testimony or it involves exhibits that don't show up on the approved exhibit list. Sometimes you do get a witness who goes off the rails and says something no one expected, but not that often. So really, even if a judge were of a mind to permit a trial to go for longer than scheduled, it's highly unlikely that it would.
posted by valkyryn at 5:39 AM on December 14, 2011 [2 favorites]
Then the judge gets pissed at the attorneys. At the pre-trial conference, attorneys are asked how long they think the trial is going to take. Asking for more time than you need is pretty standard, and judges are always happy to schedule a trial for four days and wrap up in three, etc. But because the attorneys have had ample opportunity to ask for as much time as they need, judges aren't generally inclined to let them go over that. I've seen a plaintiff's attorney shut down mid-way through his closing argument, just as he started to talk about damages, because he had run out of time.
By the time a case gets to trial, the attorneys basically know what's going to happen. They know who they're going to call, who the other side is going to call, and about how long each witness is going to testify. Surprises at trial are exceedingly unwelcome, and when they happen, they're usually a surprise to both sides. Springing new facts or a new argument on opposing counsel isn't just kind of unfair, it is in many cases not allowed, either because it contradicts prior sworn testimony or it involves exhibits that don't show up on the approved exhibit list. Sometimes you do get a witness who goes off the rails and says something no one expected, but not that often. So really, even if a judge were of a mind to permit a trial to go for longer than scheduled, it's highly unlikely that it would.
posted by valkyryn at 5:39 AM on December 14, 2011 [2 favorites]
Based on my father's process when he was called for jury duty, in Quebec:
He was initially called for what was likely to be a long trial; he actually got out of it as he's not Christian and the Jewish New Year was coming up. Court, of course, goes on during those holidays, so people who aren't Christian can get out of them. The judge tested this by asking him the names of the upcoming holidays and maybe what they were about. He was re-called for a much shorter jury, and he got paid 90/day, plus parking, plus meals -- you get extra pay if you are the caregiver for dependents. When they were deliberating, he was paid somewhat more because they were sequestered, and he had all three meals covered -- dinner was at very nice restaurants and included 2 drinks each. The deliberation took longer than anticipated by a few days, and they just had to stay there.
Some jurisdictions get around the problem by just paying at least the minimum wage for jury duty, which seems the most reasonable.
posted by jeather at 6:25 AM on December 14, 2011
He was initially called for what was likely to be a long trial; he actually got out of it as he's not Christian and the Jewish New Year was coming up. Court, of course, goes on during those holidays, so people who aren't Christian can get out of them. The judge tested this by asking him the names of the upcoming holidays and maybe what they were about. He was re-called for a much shorter jury, and he got paid 90/day, plus parking, plus meals -- you get extra pay if you are the caregiver for dependents. When they were deliberating, he was paid somewhat more because they were sequestered, and he had all three meals covered -- dinner was at very nice restaurants and included 2 drinks each. The deliberation took longer than anticipated by a few days, and they just had to stay there.
Some jurisdictions get around the problem by just paying at least the minimum wage for jury duty, which seems the most reasonable.
posted by jeather at 6:25 AM on December 14, 2011
but does this mean that the jurors end up self-selecting as more wealthy, upper class or retired jurors?
I've got some experience with long trials in Los Angeles County, and this is very much not how it worked. There were one or two retired jurors but other than that the strong selection bias was for (as someone else noted) public sector employees, homemaker types, and the self or unemployed.
posted by Justinian at 9:03 AM on December 14, 2011
I've got some experience with long trials in Los Angeles County, and this is very much not how it worked. There were one or two retired jurors but other than that the strong selection bias was for (as someone else noted) public sector employees, homemaker types, and the self or unemployed.
posted by Justinian at 9:03 AM on December 14, 2011
One additional point; how serous your case is and which judge you get will have a significant impact on these questions. People above have been describing fairly laid back judges who try to be accommodating. That has not been my experience. In the lengthy trial I served as a juror for it was more "this is your civic duty" and less accommodation. If you were 5 minutes late in the morning a bench warrant was put out for your arrest, for example.
posted by Justinian at 9:07 AM on December 14, 2011
posted by Justinian at 9:07 AM on December 14, 2011
birdherder: A few students said they couldn't' do it because of school (even though the semester hadn't started yet and the judge indicated having class wasn't always a valid excuse.
A friend of mine was registered to vote in Michigan but was in grad school in New Jersey. Her Michigan hometown (a university town) called her for jury duty. She told them she was in school, but they wouldn't excuse her because the semester hadn't started at the local university.
posted by bentley at 10:34 AM on December 14, 2011
A friend of mine was registered to vote in Michigan but was in grad school in New Jersey. Her Michigan hometown (a university town) called her for jury duty. She told them she was in school, but they wouldn't excuse her because the semester hadn't started at the local university.
posted by bentley at 10:34 AM on December 14, 2011
This kind of reaction was totally unexpected for me, and I would imagine I'm not the only person who has been comfortable with the idea of making a little bit of a concession to try to do their civic duty.
You're not alone! I've never been called for jury duty but I followed a lengthy murder trial in my hometown that was a complete farce and the guy was convicted and got life without parole. His lawyer was actually good but the rest of the trial was just such...a pathetic picture of the state of our justice system. I was so upset by the outcome of the trial that I will pretty much go to great lengths to be able to serve should I ever be selected for jury duty.
posted by fromageball at 11:47 AM on December 14, 2011
You're not alone! I've never been called for jury duty but I followed a lengthy murder trial in my hometown that was a complete farce and the guy was convicted and got life without parole. His lawyer was actually good but the rest of the trial was just such...a pathetic picture of the state of our justice system. I was so upset by the outcome of the trial that I will pretty much go to great lengths to be able to serve should I ever be selected for jury duty.
posted by fromageball at 11:47 AM on December 14, 2011
Forgot to answer the OP here, but the trial I was talking about(I was not a juror) ended up taking almost twice as long as the jurors were originally told. I think they were told a month maximum and it took around 7 weeks. The jurors actually sent a note to the judge asking for their lives back(turned out that only one juror wrote the note, unbeknownst to the others, but when the judge read it it sounded like it came from the group.) I was kind of surprised that something like that didn't cause a mistrial.
In this particular trial the jurors were probably all annoyed because the first few weeks of testimony were filled with bullshit. The prosecution paraded witnesses to gossip about the defendant(this was a case of husband accused of murdering his wife) - instead of 3 weeks of gossip witnesses, they could have a whittled that way down to just a few.
They never actually produced any evidence of murder either. It was the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. After watching that I will go to great lengths to be able to serve on a jury if/when I am summoned.
posted by fromageball at 12:13 PM on December 14, 2011
In this particular trial the jurors were probably all annoyed because the first few weeks of testimony were filled with bullshit. The prosecution paraded witnesses to gossip about the defendant(this was a case of husband accused of murdering his wife) - instead of 3 weeks of gossip witnesses, they could have a whittled that way down to just a few.
They never actually produced any evidence of murder either. It was the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. After watching that I will go to great lengths to be able to serve on a jury if/when I am summoned.
posted by fromageball at 12:13 PM on December 14, 2011
« Older Celebrating my parents' anniversary | I cannot find this song anywhere, at any price Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by blaneyphoto at 8:53 PM on December 13, 2011